Americans' thinking on abortion is beginning to shift. First, new appointments to the U. S. Supreme Court have changed the character of the court and the debate. Then, last month South Dakota's governor signed a ban on all abortions except those few performed to preserve the life of the mother.

In response, Planned Parenthood's national president lamented, "It's a sad day for the women of South Dakota." The governor retorted that "the true test of a civilization" is "how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society," citing unborn children among those who need and deserve protection.

Such statements appear only to reinforce the polarization that has governed this debate for four decades: abortion rights supporters talk about the woman; abortion opponents talk about the child. Many wonder if the debate has gone anywhere in 40 years; many more feel pulled between their own moral sensibilities and their allegiance to partners, friends and family who have been through abortion.

There is, however, an evolution of sorts underway that could lead to a real conversation in the place of the usual shooting match of mutual denunciations. Consider these two Bay Area developments:

On this year's Roe vs. Wade anniversary, San Francisco's second annual "Walk for Life West Coast" drew a youthful and ethnically diverse crowd of 15,000. The event focused less on law, and more on life. It voiced a message both sides might agree on: Women deserve better than abortion. Those gathered were challenged to practice solidarity with women and couples considering abortion. Abortion was treated not as a "right," nor as a sin, but as the act of violence it is against women and children. A diverse platform of speakers was united in a common message: One can be feminist, Democrat, of any race or ethnicity, have gone through one or more abortions and still stand proudly on the side of a nonviolent response to unwanted pregnancies.

This winter, BART riders were greeted by an eye-catching series of anti-abortion ads -- part of the national "Second Look Project" campaign, sponsored locally by the agency I work for. The ads sought to educate viewers on the extreme nature of Roe and its little-known companion, Doe vs. Bolton. Carrying the tag line, "Abortion: Have we gone too far?" the ads highlighted what even anti-abortion supporters often do not realize -- that Roe and Doe require states to permit abortion even beyond viability if a physician declares that there is any broadly defined "health" reason for it.

The campaign's ads were quickly subjected to large-scale vandalism by those whose idea of debate is to silence dissent. But here is where hopeful signs emerged. Both BART and its ad agency stood behind the campaign. Pro-choice BART riders appeared on television defending the right to display what is doubtless a minority message in the Bay Area. One letter published in The Chronicle's Letters to the Editor defended our ads, challenging readers to be consistent in their embrace of free speech, tolerance and diversity.

Even in the Bay Area, most folks I talk with simply do not support the Roe-Doe status quo. Many concede the need for more humane limits on abortion practice. It is a conversation about such limits that our campaign promotes. Yet anti-abortion supporters have long neglected issues we must now face head-on: What if many abortions were declared illegal? Will women's health suffer? Who would be penalized and how? On such matters there is no dogma. Not a single anti-abortion supporter I know proposes that a woman be thrown in prison for seeking abortion. She is our neighbor and friend; she did not become pregnant alone, nor, in most cases, does she resort to abortion alone. Despite ceaseless repetition of the mantra, "It's a woman's choice," real life abortions frequently are coerced. And when medical professionals are asked to take part in ending a fetus' life, often with public funding, surely abortion is not solely a privacy issue.

Abortion opponents are open to reasoned dialogue on appropriate ways to enforce appropriate laws. Numerous studies indicate that abortion can hurt women psychologically and compromise their future childbearing capacity. Infertility, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and premature births are often correlated to internal scarring or a weakened cervix resulting from past abortions. If abortion practice is restricted, both private and publicly funded support to those facing pregnancy in difficult circumstances must continue and expand. Such support should include prenatal care and financial support for the most vulnerable. It should also offer adoption facilitation for those who courageously choose to place their child with one of the many couples who often endure years' wait to adopt a domestic newborn.

In short, Bay Area anti-abortion supporters join suffragist Alice Paul, author of the original Equal Rights Amendment, in naming abortion for what it is: "the ultimate exploitation of women." We invite our neighbors to join us in conversation about what happens next on this issue of such consequence to individuals, families and our nation.

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.